Pyrmont: Turning left from Miller Street into Harris Street on the green bike lantern...

... is running a red light

DISCUSS

My take: there's a red General Traffic lantern there protecting the pedestrian crossing. If you turn left when that is red, you're going through pedestrian traffic and in contravention. In essence, the green bike lantern only controls straight-ahead bike traffic into Union Street, and left or right turning bike traffic should wait for the general green.

The sequence is, for those who need a reminder:

  • All Red
  • Red General traffic, Green Bike, Green pedestrian
  • Red bike, Red pedestrian, Green left and right arrows for general
  • Back to Red, repeat

Two observations.

  • The fact that this light has enough ambiguity to even be asking this question means that the junction is a failure. Nice work RMS.
  • Given the ambiguity, conflict between different modes is inevitable (as with the garbage truck driver who accused me of running a red at the same junction some months back and laid a punishment pass on me for my trouble)

Thoughts?

Views: 801

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The paths on both sides of Fitzroy St are shared, so you could want to turn onto them.

At Albion the phasing IS actually set up so that if you want to turn right on the cyclist green you can do so - when the bicycle light is green at that intersection, all the others are red.

That is actually the answer for why there are times when the main lanes of Bourke St have green lights, there is green lights for pedestrians to cross Albion St, but in between it is red for cyclists. As Albion is one way and vehicles can't turn into it from Bourke St you would think it could/should be green for bikes on the cycleway too. However, the RMS has said it is because the green light for cyclists is an indication for them to turn right into Albion St as well as just head straight along the cycleway. Now, I don't think I have ever seen a cyclist turn right from Bourke into Albion... but that is the explanation for why so many people run that particular red light (and in doing so pose no threat to anyone).

Indeed. And if cyclists can trust that green lantern at Albion to protect them when turning eastward into Albion, they should similarly be able to trust other green lanterns when wanting to turn in any direction. But at Foveaux, just 100 metres away, they can't. Any other discrepancies like this?

And is it any wonder that cyclists learn to disregard bike lanterns? Whether red or green, they can't be trusted.

You need to give way to oncoming and left turning traffic.  The presence of a green bike lantern does not change that.

I've never understood that, because the bi-di inherently delivers cyclists to the wrong side of union st, so basically cars are turning into oncoming traffic that is on the wrong side of the street.

We keep hearing that the reason 60% of people are (about bike riding) "interested but concerned". They don't ride because they perceive it to be dangerous. 

One strategy is to say,... don't worry we'll protect you by building a network of separated paths. But these end up being bi-directional and for one direction they are on the "wrong" side of the road. This, plus intersections generally, leads to problems such as discussed here. Not many roads will ever be converted like this anyway so it is a limited solution.

I am increasingly thinking more people would perceive the roads to be safe if we opted instead for a widespread focus on the ridability of roads.  Things like (a) slowing traffic down, (b) more lines on roads (esp at intersections) helping MVs and bikes sense where they should be (c) no ambiguous or anti-cycling signals (d) better road edge surfaces, and (e) signs that legitimised bikes on roads. Also of course, denser settlement and better public transport as alternatives to MVs.

Inner Melbourne has been doing all of this.  And cycling is booming here.  Cycleways of the like that Sydney is even more divisive and doesn't help cycling on 99% on the road network.

Where sepparated infrastructure is built in Melbourne it is rarely bi-directional.  There is only real segment that is bidirectional and that was a total failure.

This makes sense for much of the road network.

Obviously you need separated cycleways for the high speed roads not designed for sharing with low speed traffic.

Hitler knew this, and the Autobahns were designed accordingly.

What we are doing is bass-ackwards. We need the separate cycleway for Pennant Hills Rd or M2. Yet in the CBD the car has to be tamed to live with bikes or be excluded entirely. Roads rejigged per Noel's prescription.

The tolling system is equally bonkers, the charge needs to be levied to get drivers off the ordinary roads shared with cyclists.

I blogged about bi-di being ridiculous back in 2012

http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2012/08/06/Stop-Buildi...

Mostly tongue-in-cheek. But only mostly.

I'm starting to believe that the CBD bike lanes are not merely absurd but actively evil. However that may be the hangover talking.

The separated bi-directional bikepath seems to be a "stage" that cities get to. They reach a point where there is the will to do something. This is what gets done in parts of the CBD. Later on the general view moves on to more widespread solutions in the way we are discussing in Sydney now. This shot I took in Montreal 4 years ago and then I think the path was already very old. Maybe even from the 1970s. Now in Montreal there is more general provision on streets for bikes.

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service